Richard Maike, Doyce Barnes and Faraday Hosseinipour are attempting to weasel out of being discovered responsible.
Following their conviction by jury in September, the trio have filed for an acquittal and retrial.
Maike (proper) filed the acquittal and new trial motions on September twenty first. The DOJ filed their response on November 4th.
Points raised in favor of acquittal and a brand new trial embrace:
- testimony from a number of DOJ skilled witnesses, with respect to “the authorized definition of a pyramid scheme” and being “unqualified to supply an opinion about pyramid schemes”;
- testimony from a retired FBI Particular Agent (retired December 2021 however labored on the case from starting to finish), that’s alleged to haven’t been “first-hand private information” when it was;
- testimony from an IRS Income Agent (Maike argues an skilled witness ought to have testified on tax fraud as a substitute of the Agent);
- the jury not being instructed to seek out that the Infinity2Global defendants “knew that i2G was working as a pyramid scheme” (the DOJ argues there’s no requirement for this);
- there was “inadequate proof” introduced to indicate that Infinity2Global’s $5000 Emperor positions constituted a safety;
- proof submitted pertaining to defendants’ involvement within the BidXcel Ponzi scheme and manipulation of I2G revenue positions was improper (regardless of the courtroom overruling objections raised throughout trial)
- typically talking, “the proof produced at trial was inadequate to help defendants’ convictions”
- jury directions pertaining to Maike withholding info from his accountants doesn’t seem on “jury instruction on tax evasion” (this pertains to Maike’s “good religion” argument, basically attempting to shift blame to his accountants);
- points with statutes of limitations on the then alleged fraudulent acts;
It needs to be famous that the DOJ known as up “over 30 witnesses” all through the Infinity2Global trial. Whereas not explicitly clarified above, the DOJ has pushed again on all the raised arguments above.
I haven’t coated them intimately as a result of it’s largely authorized procedural points being argued, the specifics of which aren’t notably attention-grabbing.
Along with the above points, Faraday Hosseinipour (proper) has thrown her attorneys underneath the bus.
That is from the DOJ’s response submitting;
Hosseinipour complains that trial counsel didn’t adequately help in plea negotiations.
Right here, the USA met with Hosseinipour in-person for 4 hours to debate “the pending costs” and “attainable paths ahead.”
In the course of the assembly, the USA “extensively went over the phrases of the [proposed] plea settlement . . . and the way the method would work if Hosseinipour determined to simply accept the plea settlement.”
Hosseinipour refused the settlement as a result of the USA “wouldn’t provide me something lower than a felony, and I had beforehand expressed that I didn’t need to plead responsible to a felony.”
The document exhibits no proof of a failure to convey a plea provide or conduct plea negotiations.
Trial counsel’s actions resulted in Hosseinipour going to trial moderately than taking a plea.
As an alternative, the document exhibits that Hosseinipour and the USA reviewed the plea provide for 4 hours, and that Hosseinipour determined to not settle for it.
Like several defendant convicted at trial, Hosseinipour now needs she would have pled responsible, however that regret is inadequate for granting a brand new trial.
The Strickland Commonplace is a long-standing Supreme Courtroom ruling that “established the usual for figuring out when a felony defendant’s Sixth Modification proper to counsel is violated by that counsel’s insufficient efficiency.”
The particulars aren’t related to this text however in the event you do need extra info it’s out there at Strickland v. Washington on Wikipedia.
Hosseinipour additionally complains that trial counsel offered ineffective help at trial as a result of he “didn’t current sure arguments,” confirmed an “lack of ability to make applicable objections,” and “left a key witness, Anzalone, unimpeached.”
Hosseinipour alleges a laundry listing of errors—that trial counsel didn’t “conduct discovery, object to the admission of proof, interview witnesses, evaluation crucial paperwork, file motions with precise benefit, produce displays, impeach biased witnesses, correctly look at witnesses, give attention to the trial, return Hosseinipour’s calls and emails, observe the attorney-client privilege, and current and even look into exculpatory proof.”
Given the shortage of specificity of Hosseinipour’s claims — her movement doesn’t embrace a single quotation to the trial document — it’s tough to use the Strickland take a look at right here.
Furthermore, to the extent Hosseinipour does embrace particular complaints, the trial document undermines them.
Regardless of having didn’t particularly establish any proof or argument to help her movement for ineffective help, Hosseinipour requests an evidentiary listening to.
The Courtroom ought to deny this request, as Hosseinipour has offered inadequate proof of ineffective help of counsel in her movement.
Given all of the delays within the lead as much as the Infinity2Global trial and the abundance of proof introduced, Maike’s Barnes’ and Hosseinpour’s motions come off as determined.
I’m not anticipating any push again from the courtroom however as of but a ruling on the motions have but to be made.
Maike, Barnes and Hosseinipour are in any other case scheduled for sentencing on December twelfth. We’ll hold you posted.
